Hi Jc,
Thank you a lot for reviewing!
On 11/12/18 09:35, JC Beyler wrote:
Hi Serguei,
The fix looks good (though I never like commented out
code, why do we not just remove the lines and add a simple
comment: "Due to JDK-8213525, we do not test X,Y, and Z
because of stability isssues").
I also normally do not like commented out code.
In this particular case, I considered commented out lines as
part of comment.
They explain what is removed better than any words. :)
Okay, I've removed these lines with the comment.
Forgot to tell that I've updated the same webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sspitsyn/webrevs/2018/8213525-unstable-test.1/
Thanks,
Serguei
But the underlying question I have that is not really
explained is : "why is it failing?"; is the spec not
specific in these cases? is it a bug in the
compiler/runtime that is not yet fixed to conform to the
spec? I ask because I would imagine that it might be
something we would like to fix, no?
No.
There is no information from the JIT compiler to return errors
when the LVT is absent.
Moreover, different compilers, modes or tiers differently
represent local values that are out of scope.
Thanks,
Serguei
Please, review a fix for:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8213525
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sspitsyn/webrevs/2018/8213525-unstable-test.1/
Summary:
A couple of the checks in new unit test developed for
JDK-8080406
is not stable.
It is expected that the type of the local intLoc
returned by the StackValueCollection
has
to be T_CONFLICT as it is out of scope at the point
where the testLocals() is called:
int staticMeth(byte byteArg, Object objArg, double dblArg, int intArg) {
testLocals(Thread.currentThread());
{
int intLoc = 9999;
intArg = intLoc;
}
return intArg;
}
But sometimes the type T_INT is returned instead of T_CONFLICT.
The fix is to disable the checks that can fail because of it.
Thanks,
Serguei
--
|